Qimmik's observation is correct, plus the context makes clear that the οὐ is introducing a question expecting a positive answer, rather than forming a negative declarative statement. For the apostles certainly DID do the things in question.

Also, οὐ would normally be placed before the verb unless the intent was to contrast τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι with something else--you would expect ἀλλά or a similar word later on in the sentence: "not in your name, but rather [in the name of someone else, or in some other manner or for some other purpose]"

As Markos notes, οὐ at the beginning of a sentence is a typical way to introduce a yes/no question expecting a positive answer.

The negation applies to οἱ ἰσχύοντες, not to the verb, and we have ἀλλ’ to mark the contrast between οἱ ἰσχύοντες and οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες.

"It's not healthy people who need a doctor--it's the ones in bad shape."

"we do prophesy but not in your name and drive out demons and perform miracles"

No, with the repetition of τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι, and with καὶ and not οὐδὲ, in order to turn this into an affirmative statement instead of a question, the translation would have to be "we do prophesy but not in your name, and we drive out demons in your name and we perform miracles in your name" -- which doesn't seem to make much sense.

Piro, you've come to the right place to get an explanation, and Qimmik has already given you one that makes perfect sense. If you choose to shut your ears to it and persist in unreason, we really can't help you.

many christians know the fact they have to do everything in the name of Jesus Christ

and those are the deeds of God

one have to do Christ's deeds - prophesying and healing -otherwise one cannot be of Christ

here is the point of confession - because it is a sin -

Thanks for your response, piro. It allows us to see where you are coming from theologically.

What do you mean by "have to?" Are you saying that Christians who have never prophesied or healed will go to Hell? And how many exorcisms does one have to perform in order to meet your standard of being of Christ? Are we not saved by faith alone? Did the thief on the cross perform ANY miracles in Jesus' name? And yet Jesus promised him paradise because he confessed His name before he died.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in prophesy and exorcisms and healing and other miracles in Jesus' name, and I believe that, all things being equal, Christians should strive to do them. To not do so (or to not do enough is) one of the many sins of omissions in respect to which we have all fallen short of the glory of God. But sinners who believe that Jesus is Lord are saved.

Your interpretation strikes me as the opposite of what Jesus is saying. He is not condemning people who do not perform enough exorcisms. He is condemning people who perform exorcisms but don't have the heart of Christ.

piro wrote:...one more example - one negation and not repeated as it should be many times

Sure, οὐ...καί and οὐ...οὐδέ can be used interchangeably. On this narrow point I would agree with you. The Greek grammar (just barely) makes your interpretation possible. It's the context and the theology that make it highly unlikely. It violates the rule of faith and would lead to a Gospel of works.

Surely context is important here (as everywhere). In Matthew 7.21 Jesus says: 'Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven ...' In 7.22 we appear to be given an example: 'Many will say to me on that day: 'Lord, Lord ...' etc. Now, it seems to me that these people must be among those referenced in 7.21 as seeking to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; if so, why on earth(!) would they say: 'Lord, Lord, we did not do X and Y in your name'? Surely, on the contrary, they would be adducing reasons why they should be allowed into Heaven, i.e. precisely because they had done certain things in Jesus' name.

I cannot therefore fathom what sense the original poster extracts from this passage, in context, on his interpretation - perhaps he would care to explain. Or am I missing something obvious?

Edited: If your interpretation is true, then Matthew did not know how to write Greek very clearly, because everyone who has read that passage for thousands of years has taken it to mean the exact opposite of what you think it means.

I'm not a Christian, but even I am prompted by this discussion to recall the comment attributed to someone (Erasmus?) to the effect that 'I give thanks to God every day that he did not make my eternal happiness dependent upon exegetical enquiries'!

If I'm not mistaken, μή ποτε here isn't a negative word--it means "perhaps." "Perhaps they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn around, and I'll heal them."

I can't see how μή ποτε could be interpreted as a negative here--in fact, he's suggesting that they might do all of the things he mentions: see, hear, understand and turn around. So there's no reason to repeat the negative with each verb (as there would be in Matthew 7:22). In fact, adding a negative particle to each verb would not just be strange, it would convey exactly the opposite of what is being said.

In short, this passage (Matthew 13:15) is not a valid parallel to Matthew 7:22, and, to repeat, if piro's translation were correct, we would expect the parallel verbs ἐξεβάλομεν and ἐποιήσαμεν to be linked by οὐδὲ, instead of καὶ.

Added to that, as previously mentioned, οὐ at the beginning of a sentence is a typical way to introduce a yes/no question expecting a positive answer. Instead, to their surprise, the false prophets get a negative answer.

And this follows: ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν. οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν suggests that he's responding to people who have done something wrong, not to people who haven't done anything.

I should disclose that my background isn't Christian, so perhaps I shouldn't be interjecting my views here.

Qimmik wrote:...to repeat, if piro's translation were correct, we would expect the parallel verbs ἐξεβάλομεν and ἐποιήσαμεν to be linked by οὐδὲ, instead of καὶ.

Just a minor point of clarification. I have already said that I more or less agree with this. I can't really explain why, but I too would expect οὐδέ in the unlikely event that piro's understanding of Mt. 7:22 were correct. But I have been giving a little thought of late to the negative connectives, and maybe the most important thing you can say about these is that the usage is quite various. There is a formal difference between οὐ καί and οὐδέ, and WHEN THE CONTEXT SUPPORTS IT, you can appeal to the difference to establish a difference in meaning. But on a practical level, quite often the two are used interchangeably, and so I would be reluctant to appeal to this to refute piro. It's just like καί and δέ. There is a formal difference, but there are zillions of cases where the two mean the same thing.

What I mean is that these two sentences

οὐκ ἐσθίω καὶ πίνω.οὐκ ἐσθίω οὐδὲ πίνω.

CAN mean different things, if the contexts are different, but they can also mean the same thing.

I should disclose that my background isn't Christian, so perhaps I shouldn't be interjecting my views here.

No, not at all.

Jeff Tirey could have written: ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification...

οὐκ ἐσθίω καὶ πίνω -- you might be able to interpret this as "I don't eat or drink" with two short and closely related verbal ideas or where the verbal ideas follow consequentially on one another--I think I've seen parallels to this in Demosthenes and Thucydides. For example, something like "I don't eat and drink in the evening, but instead I study Greek."

But it would be very strange to interpret the sentence in question that way.

Personally I'm still unclear as to why anyone desperate to get into Heaven would in effect be saying 'Lord, we didn't do as you told us.' Surely they would be adducing positive instances of what they had done, in the hope of gaining celestial admission.

1 New International VersionBut I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.

2 New International VersionI tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

3 New International VersionThe Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.

this shows that judgement will be exhaustive enough by all aspects of life

if on the judgement will be comparables available - then one can imagine that it could be standing who were doing all these things and besides them will be who was not

if God will ask you - you see they were doing my will and in what way you were doing?

nothing to tell - exactly like that -we were not capable to do in thy name these

I find it noteworthy that both Paul and Jesus, while of course not denying that prophesy and healings and exorcisms are important, downplay them here, in favor of love and grace respectively. It seems that, already in the earliest Church, there had arisen what Luther would later call a "theology of glory." People who were blessed with the spiritual gifts were using them to lord it over others and began to imply that if you did not have a certain gift you were not good enough to be saved. It is very hard for us not to trust in our own religious righteousness and instead base our salvation on grace alone through faith. I never judge anyone who falls into this trap. It is hard not to take Christianity as religion requiring works rather than as a covenant requiring only trust in Jesus' death. So much so that passages like Mt. 7:22, which are meant to remind us NOT to rely on our works, can taken by some to suggest just the opposite.